EU mulls sending warships to protect Red Sea vessels from Houthis (www.euronews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by little_cow@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Brussels wants to launch a bespoke EU mission to protect commercial vessels in the Red Sea from attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EU’s diplomatic service proposes sending "at least three" warships with "multi mission capabilities" to the region as early as next month.

The document recommends the "fast-tracking implementation" of an operation mandated to act "from the Red Sea to the Gulf," in order to protect maritime security in a region plagued by instability in recent weeks.

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Why not let Liberia, Malta, Bahamas, and wherever else those ships are flagged with deal with it? It is the duty of the countries under which the ships are registered to take care of the protection in international waters. How many ships running in the Persian Golf/Red Sea/Horn of Africa region are actually registered to a (non-Malta) EU state or the USA?

Tell them that if you want cheap, you get cheap.

[-] jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Just because it flies under a certain flag doesn't mean it only serves that country.

Also, the people on those ships deserve the right to work safely, regardless of who is providing that protection.

That being said, other countries that rely on these ships should be helping as well. US warships are doing it to prove their weapons and train the crew, but in the end it's all paid for by the US taxpayers.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

If flies under that flag just to save on taxes and labor laws. The ship owners don't want safety, or at least they don't want to pay for it. Let them suffer. Care for the crews, if possible, but let the owners rot.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

The best way to protect the ship and then take the ship in tow. They can be released in exchange for tax concessions from the Bahamas.

[-] jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

The ship owners don't want safety, or at least they don't want to pay for it. Let them suffer.

The ship owners (the company owners) are more than likely not on that ship. It's just regular workers.

There's no way to "let them rot" without risking the lives of the people on the ship.

I get that Lemmy has a very diehard "eat the rich" stance, and I do too, but make sure it's directed at the correct people.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

While its an unsympathetic way to look at it the other poster is correct. Its like saying the EU should pay for insurance claims in China when work is outsourced because its cheaper.

One of the unfortunate consequences of modern globalization is that we are now starting to move away from multilateralism as each country moves to secure their own interests and citizens... and the massive flaws in the design of the UN security council has left them impotent.

[-] intelshill@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

World War 3: Middle East proxy war

[+] stmcld@lemmy.dbzer0.com -12 points 4 months ago

The US: " we don't want an escalation of tensions in the middle east." The US then proceeds to escalate tensions in the middle east.

It's one of the most glaring examples of disconnect between what they're saying and what they're doing that I've seen.

The US is lying about their intent again to no one's surprise.

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 30 points 4 months ago

The houthis were launching missiles and drones at civilian ships in the red sea for weeks before these strikes took place.

If the us/eu goal is to protect said traffic you can't expect them to do nothing.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

More than weeks, it's been going on since November. It's amazing how some people find it acceptable for Yemen to blow up and hijack civilian ships and are then brazen enough to blame others when a coalition of governments put a stop to Yemen's missile attacks and hijackings of civilian ships.

[-] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Sure, but have you considered the possibility that America Bad?

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Lol never! Why would I EVER think that the largest military power in the history of mankind would EVER be anything but good?

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The Houthis have made it clear that they don't want israel to be supplied for their genocide.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well, for weeks before the Houthis said that the reason for the blockade is Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. And that once Israel ceases their attacks on Gaza they would end the blockade.

Instead of using their political leverage to get Israel to stop their bombing, and thereby ensuring the end of the Houthi blockade, the US is instead attacking the Houthis and providing even more cover to Israel to continue it's genocide.

But yes, of course the US and allies would value the delays of shipments and providing genocide cover for Israel more than stopping an ongoing genocide against Palestinians

And yes, it's a major worldwide shipment route. So why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel and thereby the blockade instead of attacking the Houthis on their own territory and greatly exacerbating tensions in the region.

That is why i said that there is a disconnect in what the US says and what it does. It has a diplomatic route to take but instead starts warring. And no, saying that the Houthis should just stop the blockade without Israel stopping it's genocide is not a valid diplomatic route.

So that begs the question if the US is truly concerned with the blockade of a major shipping route or if they're simply providing cover for Israel to continue bombing Gaza and terrorising the West Bank.

Replying from my alt account

[-] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel

The US is highly religious and primarily Christian (68%). Generally, Christians see Jews and by extension Israelis as "God's chosen people". The second largest religion in the US behind Christianity is Judaism (2%).

"Religious practice is widespread, among the most diverse in the world, and profoundly vibrant. The country has the world's largest Christian population. A majority of the global Jewish population lives in the United States, as measured by the Law of Return." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Religion

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And yet people will argue that the US is being charitable and concerned about a justified ( in my opinion) blockade of a major shipping route.

[+] bluGill@kbin.social -6 points 4 months ago

Why does everyone support Hamas in this? If Hama hadn't kidnapped civilians we would not be here. But no everyone only blames Isreal.

sure Isreal should have done things differently, their response should have been better. However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas. There is no neutral as neural serves one side.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why does everyone support Hamas in this?

They don't.

However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas.

That's ridiculous.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

South Africa places Israel’s actions since October 7 in the context of a history of “apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination, and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” … “during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza.” Notably, South Africa points out that Israel has been carrying out extreme violence against Palestinians even before Hamas’s actions on October 7 (which it unequivocally condemns but notes cannot justify genocide).

https://africasacountry.com/2024/01/understanding-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Nobody invoked Hamas specifically in this thread until you did now.

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 2 points 4 months ago

This is clearly about Hamas andithe various reactions to it. Not invoking Hamas is thus trying to hide something.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EU’s diplomatic service proposes sending "at least three" warships with "multi mission capabilities" to the region as early as next month.

Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, a raft of drone and rocket attacks in the Red Sea by the Houthis, an Iran-backed rebel group that controls a part of Yemen, has threatened to severely disrupt trade flows into Europe.

Tensions escalated at the turn of the new year when ten Houthi militants attempting to sabotage a Danish-operated ship were killed by Prosperity Guardian officers, prompting Iran to send in its own frigate on January 1.

But the request was shut down by Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez, who said the country was "willing" to consider a bespoke European mission to patrol the area and protect Europe's commercial interests.

American and British forces, with backing from the Netherlands, stepped up their response to the attacks overnight with the first air and missile strikes in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

The original article contains 514 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024

84 points (95.7% liked)

World News

36865 readers

2611 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.